In addition, you may want to look at some statistics about the types of guns used in crimes. Where they legally owned/possessed by the bad guy? What about stolen? Do they currently conform to the state/federal laws (ie fully automatic garage-conversions or high caps in CA)?

Compare gun crime vs gun ownership trends.

Check the links in my forum signature. They may also help.

__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up.

Any efforts to reduce "gun violence" are an amoral perversion and a political distortion of issues aimed at limiting a citizen's freedom to self-determination because the real issue should be to reduce violence not so-called "gun violence". Likewise any silly statistic showing a reduction in "gun homicides" due to increased gun control is nonrepresentational since what matters should be the amount of homicides, not what means was used to commit them.

In China, due to lack of guns, madmen hatchet kindergarten children in their classrooms.

Or, they just have firearms they obtained illegally in the first place. Also, as Nicki said, you need to establish which laws are "strict", and which are "reasonable". Are traditional background checks "reasonable"? Are only instant checks reasonable now that they are available? Are waiting/"cooling off" periods? AWB's? "Hi-cap" bans? Barrel length regulations? Caliber limitations? And so on, and so on. Now, I don't necessarily think you would have to name th all (the paper would just be too long, and I'm sure you have a deadline to meet), but I would definitely list the most common and rediculous ones. Once that is established, you must give your stance, but make sure to back it up with factual resources and information, and not just conjecture. John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" is a good place to start, as he has done a lot o the leg work for you already. I know there are other books like his out there (and I would recommend using/citing them to add validity to your standpoints), but I can't think of any more off the top of my head.
Anyways, good luck.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by 383green

Stockpiling ammunition is like investing in a 401k that allows you to make withdrawals in the form of kinetic energy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oaklander

I will NOT be a part of a civil rights movement which contains its own version of "P.C."

5-23-11 The day the Sleeping Giant awoke.

"...What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?"
-A. Scalia 2005

The largest mass shooting in modern history happened in a country with strict gun control. Columbine happened during the AWB. Sweden has more guns per capita than the U.S., but a far lower homicide rate. England banned guns in 1997, they still have gun crime, and now you're much more likely to be stabbed there.

__________________

Vote for pro-gun candidates, or lose your rights, and the rights of future generations. That's it. The end.

I actually doubt that. Most, if not all guns are registered in Sweden. Not in the US. There are millions and millions of unregistered shotguns, rifles, pistols and BP firearms that are not registered and therefore uncountable. Those statistics are therefore skewed.

I am convinced there are far more guns per capita in the US than in Sweden. But that doesn't change anything anyway. This Swedish tragedy was an outlier, an anomaly. It can't be used by either side to make a point.

I actually doubt that. Most, if not all guns are registered in Sweden. Not in the US. There are millions and millions of unregistered shotguns, rifles, pistols and BP firearms that are not registered and therefore uncountable. Those statistics are therefore skewed.

I am convinced there are far more guns per capita in the US than in Sweden. But that doesn't change anything anyway. This Swedish tragedy was an outlier, an anomaly. It can't be used by either side to make a point.

Actually, you're right. I meant to say Sweden has more registered machine guns per capita than the U.S.

P.S. I didnt Sweden had the mass shooting, that was Norway.

__________________

Vote for pro-gun candidates, or lose your rights, and the rights of future generations. That's it. The end.

The largest mass shooting in modern history happened in a country with strict gun control. Columbine happened during the AWB. Sweden has more guns per capita than the U.S., but a far lower homicide rate. England banned guns in 1997, they still have gun crime, and now you're much more likely to be stabbed there.

I saw a new article yesterday where in England, some criminals wielding axes and bats rode into a mall on motorcycles and robbed stores. If the English had access to firearms I have no doubt these guys would have had guns, but the lack of guns did nothing to stop this crime.

The problem with current gun laws is that they are relatively ineffective in the United States due to lack of consistent gun laws across all state lines. Couple that with the fact that there are around 310,000,000 firearms in the hands of civilians right now, and laws limiting access do little to reduce availability. The only way that the government could stem the number of firearm related homicides (other than through societal changes), is to do a door to door militaristic confiscation of every residence in the US.

Even doing this will have little effect on the overall homicide rate in the US. Humans are fragile creatures and it takes little damage to our bodies to kill us. I trained for 3 years on how to injure and kill with just my hands and feet. If someone wants to murder someone else, they could always find some way. Most murders in the US are domestic situations anyway where the victim and the murderer know each other, and therefor have regular access to each other.

and possibly even this, to show that harsh, nationwide prohibitions in a "gun free paradise" have not made it a paradise at all but the opposite: Guns and Violence: The English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm

__________________"The Religion of Peace":Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
". . . all [historical] experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms[of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."
Decl. of Indep., July 4, 1776
NRA Benefactor/Life Member; Lifer: CRPA, GOA, SAF & JPFO

Guns & homicides from bullets have nothing to do with each other. Criminals commit crimes not tools. America has a societal problem, not a gun problem. In fact America needs more guns not less. America's societal problems can be traced to TV & the public school systems, which are both the responsibility of parents. Parents are failing their kids & our society. Criminals are rewarded & citizens are punished in the US. Follow the money & all shall become clear.

Guns & homicides from bullets have nothing to do with each other. Criminals commit crimes not tools. America has a societal problem, not a gun problem. In fact America needs more guns not less. America's societal problems can be traced to TV & the public school systems, which are both the responsibility of parents. Parents are failing their kids & our society. Criminals are rewarded & citizens are punished in the US. Follow the money & all shall become clear.

I'm writing a paper about how I believe stricter gun laws will not reduce the number of homicides in United States.

It's an argumentative paper.

I need help on key points and maybe some links to articles where they discuss this subject.

The key points I already have.
1. Not constitutional
2. Only law abiding citizens will follow the law.
3.

I just need a couple more

Thanks

Often times in argumentative papers, its a good idea to include alternate solutions.

What do my fellow calgunners think would actually deter crime?

My ideas
-Death penalty for crimes commited with guns (exceptions for lawful self defense) as in felony assault with a weapon, robbery, etc...

-Statewide shall-issue CCW with national reciprocity, with a 10 year prison sentence for anyone caught with a gun and no CCW. (exceptions for travel, and securing firearms misunderstandings...big difference between a gun in its case unlocked, and one on a KKK members belt or in his glove box loaded.)

-Must register your weapons if you live in high crime areas. dont like it, move out.

Often times in argumentative papers, its a good idea to include alternate solutions.

What do my fellow calgunners think would actually deter crime?

My ideas
-Death penalty for crimes commited with guns (exceptions for lawful self defense) as in felony assault with a weapon, robbery, etc...

-Statewide shall-issue CCW with national reciprocity, with a 10 year prison sentence for anyone caught with a gun and no CCW. (exceptions for travel, and securing firearms misunderstandings...big difference between a gun in its case unlocked, and one on a KKK members belt or in his glove box loaded.)

-Must register your weapons if you live in high crime areas. dont like it, move out.

Murder is murder, whether committed with bare hands, a rock, a gun, a 10,000lb bomb, or the jawbone of an ***. All these stupid ‘firearms enhancements’ are just pits and snares to entrap the common man and make him fearful of exercising his rights; least some minor transgression blow up into a 10 or 20 year sentence simply because he happened to have a gun in his pocket.

__________________Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud)

Often times in argumentative papers, its a good idea to include alternate solutions.

What do my fellow calgunners think would actually deter crime? .

Better access to mental health services for those in crisis, and better enforcement by the criminal justice system in domestic violence cases. Realistically, I think the data on recent shootings shows these areas are likely to be more effectively (if still imperfectly) targeted relative to blanket gun laws.

Thinking about gun control overall, here's an analogy: Stabbing a blade through the heart of a cancer patient is, arguably, an effective way to ensure he won't die of cancer. Doing a biopsy and excising the tumor is nearly as effective at stopping cancer, and has the added benefit of not killing the patient.

Here's another: Drunk drivers kill about the same number of people every year as the number of firearms homicides. There is not widespread calls to ban cars or alcohol. Instead, we do all sorts of intervention and education to would-be drunk drivers, and we accept that the risk attendant in relatively free access to both cars and alcohol is that a certain percentage of irresponsible people will drive drunk. (Interesting side note: I was recently involved in a fundraising event at which alcohol was served. Our local police department had an officer there administering voluntary EPAS screenings to attendees. Fully 2/3 of those who attended voluntarily submitted to screening, and some of the attendees were not drinking.)

Back to guns: The problem we're trying to solve is the behavior of people with violent tendencies and/or mental illness and who are willing to break the law. Therefore, the solution should come from providing interventions targeted toward mental illness and violent tendencies - and, to the extent possible, limiting those interventions to those willing to break the law. When you decouple these issues from the emotion of guns, the solutions proposed by the gun control groups would be utterly irrational if translated to any other problem domain.

Better access to mental health services for those in crisis, and better enforcement by the criminal justice system in domestic violence cases. Realistically, I think the data on recent shootings shows these areas are likely to be more effectively (if still imperfectly) targeted relative to blanket gun laws.

Thinking about gun control overall, here's an analogy: Stabbing a blade through the heart of a cancer patient is, arguably, an effective way to ensure he won't die of cancer. Doing a biopsy and excising the tumor is nearly as effective at stopping cancer, and has the added benefit of not killing the patient.

Here's another: Drunk drivers kill about the same number of people every year as the number of firearms homicides. There is not widespread calls to ban cars or alcohol. Instead, we do all sorts of intervention and education to would-be drunk drivers, and we accept that the risk attendant in relatively free access to both cars and alcohol is that a certain percentage of irresponsible people will drive drunk. (Interesting side note: I was recently involved in a fundraising event at which alcohol was served. Our local police department had an officer there administering voluntary EPAS screenings to attendees. Fully 2/3 of those who attended voluntarily submitted to screening, and some of the attendees were not drinking.)

Back to guns: The problem we're trying to solve is the behavior of people with violent tendencies and/or mental illness and who are willing to break the law. Therefore, the solution should come from providing interventions targeted toward mental illness and violent tendencies - and, to the extent possible, limiting those interventions to those willing to break the law. When you decouple these issues from the emotion of guns, the solutions proposed by the gun control groups would be utterly irrational if translated to any other problem domain.

Tammy

Very well said.

I noticed something kind of shocking, many (not all) shootings involve the person killing themselves afterwards. and in the case of a recent one, the guy was out on parole.

How can you legislate a crazy person especially when they are going to just end their life after said act. In that case, sure gun crime couldnt have been prevented. But as is said many times over in this thread its really a violence problem. And crazy can pick up an ice pick just as easy as a gun.

I think its important to understand something. Yes, a gun ban will stop all gun crime, but It cannot stop crime. They will still happen. And honestly, I carry a gun for the one in a million chance I am victimized by a group of people and have no hope of protecting myself or my family without it.

But I am glad so many of you realize that guns do make crime easier, we just all understand that its a necessary evil and in fact is less evil than kids sports, drunk drivers, and even smoking.

Google "Gun Control crime rates" or something like that. I remember reading an article once where they stastically came up with the amount of increased homicides due to gun control. It tracked homicides before major gun control laws took place and compared them to national average trends to come up with a statistical number of increased homicides due to stricter gun control laws... the results were shocking. The thing that pisses me off is the one off movie theater shootings that kill 20 people or so but if you look at the statistics, gun control has killed thousands per year, that's something that isn't reported because theres no drama behind it.

They should pass a law making suicide illegal and then we'd automatically reduce gun deaths in America by 50%.

Oh wait, suicide is already illegal. Maybe we should pass another law making suicide by gun "double illegal". Yeah, that will fix it....

Gun violence in America is a societal problem, not an inanimate object problem or a law problem. Too many untreated and ignored mentally disturbed people, too many children without good role models, too many homes with no one available to teach kids right and wrong and to discipline them and teach them actions have consequences.

__________________"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"What we get away with isn't usually the same as what's good for us"
"An extended slide stop is the second most useless part you can put on a 1911"
"While Ruger DA revolvers may be built like a tank, they have the aesthetics of one also,
although I suppose there are a few tanks which I owe an apology to for that remark"

They should pass a law making suicide illegal and then we'd automatically reduce gun deaths in America by 50%.

Oh wait, suicide is already illegal. Maybe we should pass another law making suicide by gun "double illegal". Yeah, that will fix it....

Gun violence in America is a societal problem, not an inanimate object problem or a law problem. Too many untreated and ignored mentally disturbed people, too many children without good role models, too many homes with no one available to teach kids right and wrong and to discipline them and teach them actions have consequences.

No, No No, You have it all wrong. If you kill yourself with a gun you should get the death penalty. That way they will have to resurrect you and put you on death row with your own carpet and curtains, TV, and internet. And you can die of old age while the state pays for endless appeals.

__________________Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud)

As 2A supporters, we need to be honest, and acknowledge there is unfortunately not enough research or data to assert that armed neighborhoods are safer than unarmed ones, or that the rate of LTCs has a deterrent effect. Just not enough data, not enough scientific research, and way too many other factors at play. Lott's research is impressive but also controversial. Correlation and causation are two different things.

However, I know this: gun control doesn't work.

Like many on this board, I come from a country where there is strict gun control - France. Like a lot of those countries, strict gun control was imposed after World War 2, when civilians were ordered to surrender or register certain classes of firearms. Even among resistants, a lot of people didn't want to bother with paperwork, and sometimes chose to give away whatever rifle they had gotten parachuted over, or pistols stolen from the Germans. I suppose at the time, it was a way for some people to turn the page. They didn't see the value in it.

Getting a shotgun in France is easy if you have a hunter's license (and there are a lot of French households with legally owned shotguns, or old shotguns who have been handed from one generation to the next, and are often not registered - ask me how I know). Getting centerfire rifles or handguns is a lot more paperwork, and requires a license, membership with a club validating your permit everytime you shoot, and so on (that said, ironically, I know French people who legally own full auto ARs).

Now, for a very long time, the truth is that gun control actually did work in France, in the sense that there was very little violent crimes compared to the US. And very few gun-related deaths. The crime rate is higher for petty crimes, but much lower for murder, armed robbery, and so on.

So an argument could be made that in those countries, gun control worked. Guns were very difficult for criminals to obtain, making it harder to commit violent crimes.

But things quickly changed when the Iron Curtain fell. I remember going to Romania in January of 1990 and meeting soldiers trying to sell their AKs (for ridiculously high prices, BTW).

And a lot of Eastern European countries have now joined the EU, making it easy to truck merchandise from one end of the continent to the other.

The result? Some gangs in Western Europe now have relatively easy access to AKs. The Arab Spring will no doubt also facilitate the smuggling of more illegal guns from the Middle East and Northern Africa to Europe.

There are also a lot of militaria collectors in Europe who regularly break the law to get some items that are regulated or prohibited.

Now the bad guys over there have fire superiority. But even if getting a shotgun is still within reach for the average citizen, getting access to any other kind of weapon is very difficult. And forget about LTCs.

Things are changing in some countries. The firearm legislation in France is under review and some legislators are pushing for less paperwork and making it easier for law-abiding citizens to acquire them. Not sure if that will happen under the current government, but it could happen within years.

Now some of my friends in Europe (or antis in the US) sometimes tell me "Well you're acknowledging that gun control regulation did work in Europe, so why are you opposed to it here?"

And to me the answer is obvious and twofold:

1. The RKBA is in the US Constitution. Period. It's not in those other countries. Which is why, by the way, I don't like it when people transpose US issues to other countries, and vice-versa. It is a fundamental American right.

2. Historically, this country has been built with guns. It doesn't matter if you're Howard Zinn or Burton W. Folsom Jr., all historians will agree that they played a huge role in building this country. There are hundreds of millions of them. There is no way you can have gun control in this country on an even practical level. So deal with it.

To me, that settles it. I don't need any argument dealing with crime vs. gun control. It doesn't matter. There are plenty of very safe neighborhoods, some where everybody's got a gun (legally), and others where almost nobody does. And there are plenty of crappy neighborhoods where people can carry legally, or where gun control is very strict. It's not the legislation that really has an impact here, it's other factors: unemployment, poverty, education, population make-up, lack of LE, lack of services, etc.

If you start using statistics to make that point, the other camp will have just as many to throw at you. You're not going to convince them.

Just tell them this: there already are plenty of guns out there. Some in the hands of criminals (the minority), and most in the hands of law-abiding citizens. There is no way any amount of gun control is going to make a difference. You want less crime? Work on what causes crime. Hint: it's not guns.

As 2A supporters, we need to be honest, and acknowledge there is unfortunately not enough research or data to assert that armed neighborhoods are safer than unarmed ones, or that the rate of LTCs has a deterrent effect. Just not enough data, not enough scientific research, and way too many other factors at play. Lott's research is impressive but also controversial. Correlation and causation are two different things.

However, I know this: gun control doesn't work.

Like many on this board, I come from a country where there is strict gun control - France. Like a lot of those countries, strict gun control was imposed after World War 2, when civilians were ordered to surrender or register certain classes of firearms. Even among resistants, a lot of people didn't want to bother with paperwork, and sometimes chose to give away whatever rifle they had gotten parachuted over, or pistols stolen from the Germans. I suppose at the time, it was a way for some people to turn the page. They didn't see the value in it.

Getting a shotgun in France is easy if you have a hunter's license (and there are a lot of French households with legally owned shotguns, or old shotguns who have been handed from one generation to the next, and are often not registered - ask me how I know). Getting centerfire rifles or handguns is a lot more paperwork, and requires a license, membership with a club validating your permit everytime you shoot, and so on (that said, ironically, I know French people who legally own full auto ARs).

Now, for a very long time, the truth is that gun control actually did work in France, in the sense that there was very little violent crimes compared to the US. And very few gun-related deaths. The crime rate is higher for petty crimes, but much lower for murder, armed robbery, and so on.

So an argument could be made that in those countries, gun control worked. Guns were very difficult for criminals to obtain, making it harder to commit violent crimes.

But things quickly changed when the Iron Curtain fell. I remember going to Romania in January of 1990 and meeting soldiers trying to sell their AKs (for ridiculously high prices, BTW).

And a lot of Eastern European countries have now joined the EU, making it easy to truck merchandise from one end of the continent to the other.

The result? Some gangs in Western Europe now have relatively easy access to AKs. The Arab Spring will no doubt also facilitate the smuggling of more illegal guns from the Middle East and Northern Africa to Europe.

There are also a lot of militaria collectors in Europe who regularly break the law to get some items that are regulated or prohibited.

Now the bad guys over there have fire superiority. But even if getting a shotgun is still within reach for the average citizen, getting access to any other kind of weapon is very difficult. And forget about LTCs.

Things are changing in some countries. The firearm legislation in France is under review and some legislators are pushing for less paperwork and making it easier for law-abiding citizens to acquire them. Not sure if that will happen under the current government, but it could happen within years.

Now some of my friends in Europe (or antis in the US) sometimes tell me "Well you're acknowledging that gun control regulation did work in Europe, so why are you opposed to it here?"

And to me the answer is obvious and twofold:

1. The RKBA is in the US Constitution. Period. It's not in those other countries. Which is why, by the way, I don't like it when people transpose US issues to other countries, and vice-versa. It is a fundamental American right.

2. Historically, this country has been built with guns. It doesn't matter if you're Howard Zinn or Burton W. Folsom Jr., all historians will agree that they played a huge role in building this country. There are hundreds of millions of them. There is no way you can have gun control in this country on an even practical level. So deal with it.

To me, that settles it. I don't need any argument dealing with crime vs. gun control. It doesn't matter. There are plenty of very safe neighborhoods, some where everybody's got a gun (legally), and others where almost nobody does. And there are plenty of crappy neighborhoods where people can carry legally, or where gun control is very strict. It's not the legislation that really has an impact here, it's other factors: unemployment, poverty, education, population make-up, lack of LE, lack of services, etc.

If you start using statistics to make that point, the other camp will have just as many to throw at you. You're not going to convince them.

Just tell them this: there already are plenty of guns out there. Some in the hands of criminals (the minority), and most in the hands of law-abiding citizens. There is no way any amount of gun control is going to make a difference. You want less crime? Work on what causes crime. Hint: it's not guns.

Rant over. Back to work.

You and I have had differing POVs on a few things here, but this is a most excellent post.